Deprecated: preg_replace(): The /e modifier is deprecated, use preg_replace_callback instead in /home/public/Sources/Load.php(225) : runtime-created function on line 3Europeans blame Jewish people for the financial crisis

Let us not forget why it was put there, because no-one wanted to have the jews in their backyards, but everyone felt guilty. It receives a lot of american support because of how democrats are funded and how republicans believe.

The Jewish lobby is powerful and many premillenialists believe that Israel is a requirement for getting Christ to return. Never underestimate how perfectly sane people can become batshit insane once you slap a prophecy on something. Imperialism is actually kinda okay in some cases, as most imperial policies are self-seeking, the problem in the case of Israel is that no-one is operating from a position of seeking their own betterment, so there can be no real negotiations because no-one really, uh, no-one cares.

None of the governments involved want an equal peace, so you will probably not see one in our lifetime. The Israeli state is facing a demographic crunch, so they ceded land just so they could continue to hold a jewish majority, and the Palestinian government cannot come to the table in any serious fashion because they aren't the ones really in control. Every side believes god is on their side and that they will be vindicated.

So no Psy, Israel is not about Imperialism, if it was the world would be vastly less dangerous.

Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell

Let us not forget why it was put there, because no-one wanted to have the jews in their backyards, but everyone felt guilty. It receives a lot of american support because of how democrats are funded and how republicans believe.

The Jewish lobby is powerful and many premillenialists believe that Israel is a requirement for getting Christ to return. Never underestimate how perfectly sane people can become batshit insane once you slap a prophecy on something. Imperialism is actually kinda okay in some cases, as most imperial policies are self-seeking, the problem in the case of Israel is that no-one is operating from a position of seeking their own betterment, so there can be no real negotiations because no-one really, uh, no-one cares.

None of the governments involved want an equal peace, so you will probably not see one in our lifetime. The Israeli state is facing a demographic crunch, so they ceded land just so they could continue to hold a jewish majority, and the Palestinian government cannot come to the table in any serious fashion because they aren't the ones really in control. Every side believes god is on their side and that they will be vindicated.

So no Psy, Israel is not about Imperialism, if it was the world would be vastly less dangerous.

I take it you don't understand imperialism, imperialist wars are far more bloody then any religious war, remeber the two world wars where imperialist struggles over imperialist domination over regions. The problem is you see Israel as a independent nation instead of a client state were the US ruling class sees as highely expendable not because they are anti-semitic (if they were they wouldn't give so much aid to Israel) but because they view Israel as a pawn in the US empire that solely exists to serve their imperialist master (the US).

Exactly how has the US used Israel to expand influence in the Middle East? If anything, the continued backing of Israel has damaged the US' influence in the Middle East.

The US interest in the Middle East is maintaining puppets that allow US capitalists to exploit the regions wealth, meaning the US is against all anti-imperialist struggles in the Middle East as the US is the largest imperialist power in the Middle East. Israel has deformed Arab anti-imperialist struggles and alienated them from the rest of the world both which are in the interest of the US in the region.

So that'd mean that Israel is rich in oil, right? Since, you know, that's what most people think of when they think "Middle East".

Well, considering that nearby Iraq, Kuwait and Iran have shittons of oil and Israel has nearly none, I think you need to try again.

What makes you think all imperialism revolves around oil? Imperialism existed before oil was even valuable. Israel for the US empire acts as a proxy to crushing anti-imperialist struggles in the Middle East not only through Israel but through the reactionary religious groups that crush true anti-imperialist struggles, the US rather have Arabs join Hamas that threatens Israel then join a real anti-imperialist movement that threatens the US's domination over the region.

You want to try again, reading my post as a response to your own? But hey, if you want, I can go line by line. I can see 5 counts of "just plain wrong" and 2 counts of "non-sequiteur" in the first of your posts quoted here. If we add your other post quoted here, and your response to Heq... 3 wrong assumptions, 11 just plain wrong, 3 non-sequiteurs.

Go away, come up with something that's consistent with reality, and come back. We'll even pretend this never happened.

Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my wayI'm gonna serve it to youAnd that ain't what you want to hearBut that's what I'll do -- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

Exactly how has the US used Israel to expand influence in the Middle East? If anything, the continued backing of Israel has damaged the US' influence in the Middle East.

The US interest in the Middle East is maintaining puppets that allow US capitalists to exploit the regions wealth, meaning the US is against all anti-imperialist struggles in the Middle East as the US is the largest imperialist power in the Middle East. Israel has deformed Arab anti-imperialist struggles and alienated them from the rest of the world both which are in the interest of the US in the region.

So that'd mean that Israel is rich in oil, right? Since, you know, that's what most people think of when they think "Middle East".

Well, considering that nearby Iraq, Kuwait and Iran have shittons of oil and Israel has nearly none, I think you need to try again.

What makes you think all imperialism revolves around oil? Imperialism existed before oil was even valuable. Israel for the US empire acts as a proxy to crushing anti-imperialist struggles in the Middle East not only through Israel but through the reactionary religious groups that crush true anti-imperialist struggles, the US rather have Arabs join Hamas that threatens Israel then join a real anti-imperialist movement that threatens the US's domination over the region.

You want to try again, reading my post as a response to your own? But hey, if you want, I can go line by line. I can see 5 counts of "just plain wrong" and 2 counts of "non-sequiteur" in the first of your posts quoted here. If we add your other post quoted here, and your response to Heq... 3 wrong assumptions, 11 just plain wrong, 3 non-sequiteurs.

Go away, come up with something that's consistent with reality, and come back. We'll even pretend this never happened.

Are you suggesting imperialism didn't exist before oil was valuable, then why did Britain occupy what is now Eastern USA long before oil was valuable?

You have to ask what drives US foreign policy, it is not to spread democracy as the US has overthrown democracies and backed dictators, it is not religious as the US as the US has backed both Jews and Arabs, the only pattern to US foreign is US imperialism, that the US foreign policy is geared towards exploiting resources of foreign lands and ensuring US capitalists have the commanding heights of foreign markets. With this understand why would Israel be any different to the US ruling class?

Empires actually have to be more racially tolerant then nation-states else they suffer from manpower deficets and implode. They have less aggressive wars because they want the people, the land, and the loyalty.

The real building block of an empire is identity, that's why America has trouble managing its empire (it has failed to make people feel american) while the british empire was more successful for quite a long time (Like it or not, my grandfather was a celtic/british-Newfoundlander, who may have objected to the queen and had republican sympathies but still felt like he was part of the british system).

Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell

Empires actually have to be more racially tolerant then nation-states else they suffer from manpower deficets and implode. They have less aggressive wars because they want the people, the land, and the loyalty.

The real building block of an empire is identity, that's why America has trouble managing its empire (it has failed to make people feel american) while the british empire was more successful for quite a long time (Like it or not, my grandfather was a celtic/british-Newfoundlander, who may have objected to the queen and had republican sympathies but still felt like he was part of the british system).

Not really, many empires used racism in order to justify their exploitation other peoples, for example the Nazi empire used the myth of Aryan people being genetically superior to justify they dominance of non Aryans, or how the US empire prior to World War One institutionalized racism against non-Americans to justify slavery (when the US had slavery), the genocide of Native Americas and the colonization of the parts of the Pacific and Latin America (after World War One the US empire changed its justification of US imperialism to the US brining peace and democracy to the world).

Empires actually have to be more racially tolerant then nation-states else they suffer from manpower deficets and implode. They have less aggressive wars because they want the people, the land, and the loyalty.

The real building block of an empire is identity, that's why America has trouble managing its empire (it has failed to make people feel american) while the british empire was more successful for quite a long time (Like it or not, my grandfather was a celtic/british-Newfoundlander, who may have objected to the queen and had republican sympathies but still felt like he was part of the british system).

Not really, many empires used racism in order to justify their exploitation other peoples, for example the Nazi empire used the myth of Aryan people being genetically superior to justify they dominance of non Aryans, or how the US empire prior to World War One institutionalized racism against non-Americans to justify slavery (when the US had slavery), the genocide of Native Americas and the colonization of the parts of the Pacific and Latin America (after World War One the US empire changed its justification of US imperialism to the US brining peace and democracy to the world).

And how far did the Third Reich get? Lasted less than a decade.

Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my wayI'm gonna serve it to youAnd that ain't what you want to hearBut that's what I'll do -- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

Empires actually have to be more racially tolerant then nation-states else they suffer from manpower deficets and implode. They have less aggressive wars because they want the people, the land, and the loyalty.

The real building block of an empire is identity, that's why America has trouble managing its empire (it has failed to make people feel american) while the british empire was more successful for quite a long time (Like it or not, my grandfather was a celtic/british-Newfoundlander, who may have objected to the queen and had republican sympathies but still felt like he was part of the british system).

Not really, many empires used racism in order to justify their exploitation other peoples, for example the Nazi empire used the myth of Aryan people being genetically superior to justify they dominance of non Aryans, or how the US empire prior to World War One institutionalized racism against non-Americans to justify slavery (when the US had slavery), the genocide of Native Americas and the colonization of the parts of the Pacific and Latin America (after World War One the US empire changed its justification of US imperialism to the US brining peace and democracy to the world).

And how far did the Third Reich get? Lasted less than a decade.

While the USA using the similar rhetoric was able to expand till World War One before having to change its rhetoric, in fact Hitler was inspired by old US imperialist propaganda and actions.

Empires actually have to be more racially tolerant then nation-states else they suffer from manpower deficets and implode. They have less aggressive wars because they want the people, the land, and the loyalty.

The real building block of an empire is identity, that's why America has trouble managing its empire (it has failed to make people feel american) while the british empire was more successful for quite a long time (Like it or not, my grandfather was a celtic/british-Newfoundlander, who may have objected to the queen and had republican sympathies but still felt like he was part of the british system).

Not really, many empires used racism in order to justify their exploitation other peoples, for example the Nazi empire used the myth of Aryan people being genetically superior to justify they dominance of non Aryans, or how the US empire prior to World War One institutionalized racism against non-Americans to justify slavery (when the US had slavery), the genocide of Native Americas and the colonization of the parts of the Pacific and Latin America (after World War One the US empire changed its justification of US imperialism to the US brining peace and democracy to the world).

And how far did the Third Reich get? Lasted less than a decade.

While the USA using the similar rhetoric was able to expand till World War One before having to change its rhetoric, in fact Hitler was inspired by old US imperialist propaganda and actions.

uh... huh.

Like playing tennis against a brick wall...

Logged

And if i catch you comin' back my wayI'm gonna serve it to youAnd that ain't what you want to hearBut that's what I'll do -- "Seven Nation Army", The White Stripes

Empires actually have to be more racially tolerant then nation-states else they suffer from manpower deficets and implode. They have less aggressive wars because they want the people, the land, and the loyalty.

The real building block of an empire is identity, that's why America has trouble managing its empire (it has failed to make people feel american) while the british empire was more successful for quite a long time (Like it or not, my grandfather was a celtic/british-Newfoundlander, who may have objected to the queen and had republican sympathies but still felt like he was part of the british system).

Not really, many empires used racism in order to justify their exploitation other peoples, for example the Nazi empire used the myth of Aryan people being genetically superior to justify they dominance of non Aryans, or how the US empire prior to World War One institutionalized racism against non-Americans to justify slavery (when the US had slavery), the genocide of Native Americas and the colonization of the parts of the Pacific and Latin America (after World War One the US empire changed its justification of US imperialism to the US brining peace and democracy to the world).

And how far did the Third Reich get? Lasted less than a decade.

While the USA using the similar rhetoric was able to expand till World War One before having to change its rhetoric, in fact Hitler was inspired by old US imperialist propaganda and actions.

uh... huh.

Like playing tennis against a brick wall...

Look, what made the Nazi's holocaust different was that it happened during the in the industrial era (thus it was possible for the Nazi's to have it at a much larger scale) and not against indigenous people but mostly against a convenient religious scapegoat (the Jews).

I should have said successful empires, though the US was pretty much a world footnote until WWI so I would even call it a proto-empire.

For simplicity, I'll use these terms.

Empire: Large, longstanding multi-religious, multi-racial identities with significant world power. Rome, British Empire, Russian, Ottoman, Modern American. These are of a totally different power class then...

Nations: Usually multi-cultural but with macro similarities and a shared identity with values (and usually religions). Early America, Germany, Pre-unification China, Modern Japan. Toleration here tends to be much less, but so the resource and tech pool is much less. They tend to be better at military ruthlessness as they don't feel outsiders are like them, but when it gets into a real scrum they get the tar kicked out of them by Empires (Japan could never have won WWII, Germany was lucky to have lasted as long as they did). They can however easily kick...

Regional (Cultural) Movements: Monocultural, and usually monoreligous. Iran is actually more like a nation the a regional power or movement. Pan-Celtic movements or Quebec, the early IRA is an excellent example, and had they taken Ireland they would have had enough power to be a gadfly to an Empire, but Empire's usually deal with such movements be incorporating the greivences and sublimating them into the empire, as opposed to nations who tend to persecute.

So most of your statements are about nations, not empires, and those nations may have had aspirations to empire, but one of the neccessary qualifications for an empire of any real duration is going to be tolerance.

Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell

I should have said successful empires, though the US was pretty much a world footnote until WWI so I would even call it a proto-empire.

For simplicity, I'll use these terms.

Empire: Large, longstanding multi-religious, multi-racial identities with significant world power. Rome, British Empire, Russian, Ottoman, Modern American. These are of a totally different power class then...

Nations: Usually multi-cultural but with macro similarities and a shared identity with values (and usually religions). Early America, Germany, Pre-unification China, Modern Japan. Toleration here tends to be much less, but so the resource and tech pool is much less. They tend to be better at military ruthlessness as they don't feel outsiders are like them, but when it gets into a real scrum they get the tar kicked out of them by Empires (Japan could never have won WWII, Germany was lucky to have lasted as long as they did). They can however easily kick...

Regional (Cultural) Movements: Monocultural, and usually monoreligous. Iran is actually more like a nation the a regional power or movement. Pan-Celtic movements or Quebec, the early IRA is an excellent example, and had they taken Ireland they would have had enough power to be a gadfly to an Empire, but Empire's usually deal with such movements be incorporating the greivences and sublimating them into the empire, as opposed to nations who tend to persecute.

So most of your statements are about nations, not empires, and those nations may have had aspirations to empire, but one of the neccessary qualifications for an empire of any real duration is going to be tolerance.

Look at how far the boundaries of the US grew from its independence to WWI.

Yes, but largely because people of similar cultural and political idealogies wished to join the union.

It gained very little ground by force and the big additions were actually through cultural creep.

Big Chief Fail sign bad treaty, get fucked (it's actually a lot more complex then that, with a lot of people, but the majority of the land gained from the the Native groups was due to the implosions of those groups as they transformed politically, or didn't)France runs out of money, big land discount!!! They can't protect it from england anyway! Buy-buy-buy!You too can gain territory if you're next to an inept and corrupt government! Huzzah for the mexican government, which should have been a real world power except they couldn't beat Texas. Really, I can think of no time when a nation has made a proxy land claim and been unable to enforce it despite massive military and economic superiority which has led to serious political and diplomatic reprecussions for that nation. It never happens. NEVER.

Logged

"No common man could believe such a thing, you'd have to be an intellectual to fall for anything as stupid as that."-Orwell